‘Unparliamentary’ — What MPs cannot say in the House- THE HINDU- 08/02/2020 - PRELIMS


Parliament has witnessed heated arguments. This has brought back questions of what is “unparliamentary” speech and conduct.

What is Unparliamentary language?

Talks about and talks are the quintessence of Parliamentary vote based system. The Individuals of Parliament (MPs) and the Individuals of Administrative Gathering (MLAs) have the proper to put over their sees with regard to a law or a approach.

But there are rules that are laid to avoid Lawmaker from utilizing hostile and forceful words. Words and articulations that are opposite to rules, controls put by the Parliament and the state Council that are considered improper are called “Unparliamentary Language”.

The Managing Officers — Speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairperson of Rajya Sabha — have the work of keeping these terrible words out of Parliament’s records.


If the Presiding Officer is a “lady”, no MP can address her as “beloved Chairperson”.
Among the words and phrases that have been deemed unparliamentary are “scumbag”, “shit”, “badmashi”, “bad” (as in “An MP is a bad man”), and “bandicoot”.

The government or another MP cannot be accused of “bluffing”, “bribe”, “blackmail”, “bribery”; “thief”, “thieves”, “dacoits”, “bucket of shit”, “damn”, “deceive”, “degrade”, and “darling”, are all unparliamentary.
The government can’t be called “andhi-goongi”, or one of “Ali Baba aur 40 chor”.

An illiterate MP can’t be called “angootha chhaap”, and it is unparliamentary to suggest that a member should be sent to the “ajayabghar” (museum).

Constitutional Angle

Article 105 (2) of the Structure of India gives that no part of Parliament should be at risk to any procedures in any court in regard of anything said by the part within the Parliament or any committee thereof. What they say is subject as it were to the teach of the Rules of Parliament, the great sense of the individuals and the control of procedures by the Speaker.

Freedom of discourse delighted in by individuals in Parliament may hence be said to be outright; be that as it may, it does not deliver unhindered flexibility to a part to say anything against any person or to utilize defamatory or disgusting or undignified or unparliamentary words.

Power to expunge defamatory, indecent or unparliamentary words

Under Rule 380 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the Speaker is vested with the power to order expunction of words which, in the opinion of the Speaker, are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified from the proceedings of the House.

Similarly, the Speaker may order expunction of words which are defamatory or insinuator in nature or levels allegation against a high dignitary or authority or organization.

Why are these rules important?

It is required so as maintain decency and dignity of the house. It helps one to focus on real issues at hand and not target other legislators personally leading to ruckus in the house, disrupting the functioning of the house.

Offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House could be strictly forbidden


Words which may seem unparliamentary today may not be considered so in the near future. Codification thus may prove impractical as this has to be decided on a case to case basis depending on the context.
If the presiding officer decides that words are indeed offensive suitable action as prescribed by law has to be initiated.

Related Post